ACORN, the community organizing group embarrassed recently in a video sting, said Wednesday that it needs to determine whether it has major internal problems, but it also struck back, filing a lawsuit against the people who conducted the secret investigation.

Bertha Lewis, head of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, told reporters in a conference call that ACORN does not support criminal activity and that it thinks the filmmakers should have obeyed Maryland laws. In the state, where one video that embarrassed ACORN was made, the act constituted illegal wiretapping, the suit says. …

Lewis said she wants a newly hired investigator to find the organization’s weak spots, and she said she will make public the findings. Scott Harshbarger, a former Massachusetts attorney general hired for the investigation, vowed a “robust, no-holds-barred” review that would be “transparent.” Lewis said ACORN in the meantime will have to turn away many low-income clients it normally helps with threatened foreclosure or tax preparation.

Big Bertha’s done it now.
This will make it to Law and Order, SVU in about six months,,, with the names and places changed, of course, to protect the guilty.Please Lord, let it make it to trial, and let there be cameras.
Not holding my breath.

I have no problem with it. If laws were broken by the sting operation then action should be taken. You can’t break into someone’s house, find an unregistered handgun and then go tell the police. Everybody has to operate within the law. That goes for ACORN and the investigators.

Big Bertha’s done it now.
This will make it to Law and Order, SVU in about six months,,, with the names and places changed, of course, to protect the guilty.Please Lord, let it make it to trial, and let there be cameras.
Not holding my breath.

That’s a colossally bad mistake on ACORN’s part to even attempt to cast the videographers as the bad guys, especially when Maryland law has a pretty wide exception that allows undercover taping in areas that are public - like reception areas and offices, where the expectation of privacy isn’t present.

Moreover, ACORN isn’t even the right party to be suing here. It’s the two people who were fired in the Baltimore office. They’re the ones who were sent packing after ACORN got wind of the video. ACORN’s leadership even thanked the videographers for outing the few bad apples.

Of course, had ACORN gone the route of letting this play out and die, they could have emerged relatively unscathed.

Instead, this guarantees that the story wont go away anytime soon and their political cover will continue scurrying to avoid connections. They will continue losing support, and going after a media type like Breitbart means that he will have reason to keep the remaining two videos under wraps to be released at a moment where they will do the most damage, and can continue to hone in on ACORN activities around the country from his website services and through other media outlets. The suit means that other media outlets will have to cover it as well, compounding ACORN’s woes.

I guess 60 minutes, Dateline and countless other investigative journalists have also been guilty of this over the years. When will they get rounded up as well?

It depends on what state laws are involved. Maryland became notorious for its wiretapping laws over the Monica affair - and Linda Tripp’s taping of conversations (which Md incidentally dropped after the prosecutor suppressed key testimony, but the circumstances of the taping were different than here).

Not necessarily - if the meat cutting area was private area, then there’s an expectation of privacy. When you’re in a waiting area/reception area/public area of an office, you don’t have the same expectation of privacy.

I have no problem with it. If laws were broken by the sting operation then action should be taken. You can’t break into someone’s house, find an unregistered handgun and then go tell the police. Everybody has to operate within the law. That goes for ACORN and the investigators.

I have no problem either; let the chips fall where they may. But they have been outed and no amount of legal grandstanding will change the fact of their own perfidy.

That’s a colossally bad mistake on ACORN’s part to even attempt to cast the videographers as the bad guys, especially when Maryland law has a pretty wide exception that allows undercover taping in areas that are public - like reception areas and offices, where the expectation of privacy isn’t present.

IMO, he called his cousin the cop after a few days of thinking it over and asked ‘Ummm, cuz… could there be any problems for me from this one’?…
And cousin cop confirms ’ Just to be sure, better phone it in, that way you’re covered. Got your back.’

Lewis said ACORN in the meantime will have to turn away many low-income clients it normally helps with threatened foreclosure or tax preparation.

Why? Those activities aren’t tied to helping obtain a mortgage. She sounds like a spoiled child.

They suspended those activities because of the illicit advise spewed by ACORN employees on how to circumvent the law and engage in illicit activities.

The problem for ACORN - and one that law enforcement must engage in, is to determine what kind of advice they were providing others seeking assistance. Was the advice provided legitimate, or did it help people circumvent the law? Given the moral and ethical flexibility displayed by ACORN employees on the video, it’s a ripe question.

Unfortunately, the precedent is with ACORN.
ABC, iirc, lost a suit when they had someone in the meat cutting department of a supermarket record unsafe conditions and meat handling.

IIRC, they were doing more than just “recording unsafe conditions and meat handling”; this was a hatchet job (like the explosives Dateline planted in trucks they were claiming to be unsafe) deliberately pushed by the unions against the Food Lion chain, which was a non-union company.

I have no problem with it. If laws were broken by the sting operation then action should be taken. You can’t break into someone’s house, find an unregistered handgun and then go tell the police. Everybody has to operate within the law. That goes for ACORN and the investigators.

He’s right. Any country that calls for the destruction of a UN member state should be suspended or thrown out of the UN (unless it is in response to an attack from the other country, and Israel is not threatening Iran with anything other than retaliation.)
That would be a principle of anything that I’d have replace the UN.

They suspended those activities because of the illicit advise spewed by ACORN employees on how to circumvent the law and engage in illicit activities.

The problem for ACORN - and one that law enforcement must engage in, is to determine what kind of advice they were providing others seeking assistance. Was the advice provided legitimate, or did it help people circumvent the law? Given the moral and ethical flexibility displayed by ACORN employees on the video, it’s a ripe question.

Hi lawhawk. Hmmm…good point. I was separating activities, not thinking in terms of circumvention in general. I expect your take is spot on, especially if it’s found they did the same kind of things during foreclosure and tax prep activities.

IIRC, they were doing more than just “recording unsafe conditions and meat handling”; this was a hatchet job (like the explosives Dateline planted in trucks they were claiming to be unsafe) deliberately pushed by the unions against the Food Lion chain, which was a non-union company.

The fact is, in Maryland, I can’t tape you (video or audio) without letting you know - even if you’re stalking me on the phone. It’s against the law, and the evidence is inadmissible in court.

For the court of public opinion that may not count, but the stingers may yet find themselves stung, nonetheless.

Not sure what a major news organization does when they want to report undercover in Maryland. Maybe find another state? Or take their lumps and pay the fine?

It’s an obscure law, and may need to be changed, but the pimp ‘n’ ho team may have to write a fat check, at the very least.

No doubt to be covered by the people who are happy not just to see ACORN in trouble, but who are now gleefully rubbing their hands at the thought that some poor people (those evil bums) might lose their houses in the absence of help.

Not necessarily - if the meat cutting area was private area, then there’s an expectation of privacy. When you’re in a waiting area/reception area/public area of an office, you don’t have the same expectation of privacy.

If I remember correctly, in the Food Lyon case the “undercover employee” was the one who actually suggested the wrongdoing. ABC was all hung out.

Unlawful acts. — Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. Cts. & Jud. Proc. &sect10-402(a)(1)-(a)(3). (emphasis added)

actually the funniest part is obama now acting like apostle peter saying he doesn’t know much about acorn, and he hasn’t paid much attention because he has more important items on his agenda..heh…he was acorns left nut for years and he knows it…acorn under the obama express bus in…well, right now!

I have no problem with it. If laws were broken by the sting operation then action should be taken. You can’t break into someone’s house, find an unregistered handgun and then go tell the police. Everybody has to operate within the law. That goes for ACORN and the investigators.

She was taping Monica in private residences on phone calls, where there was an expectation of privacy. Not the same as going into an office waiting room with an undercover camera. Different outcomes.

Here’s the Maryland law in question:

Section 10-410(a) of the Maryland Wiretap Act provides:
Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic
communication is intercepted, disclosed, or
used in violation of this subtitle shall have
a civil cause of action against any person who
intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures
any other person to intercept, disclose, or
use the communications, and be entitled to
recover from any person:
(1) Actual damages but not less than
liquidated damages computed at the rate of
$100 a day for each day of violation or
$1,000, whichever is higher;
(2) Punitive damages; and
(3) A reasonable attorney’s fee and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Case law has carved out a pretty big exception for taped conversations in public spaces.

Further, ACORN would have to show actual malice by the videographers - that what they knew what they was doing was illegal. That’s something that might cut in ACORN’s favor, but on the whole, I think ACORN is barking up the wrong tree here from a legal and a publicity standpoint. It’s precisely the wrong way to get the focus off ACORN’s activities and let it go back to doing whatever it was doing before the videos came out.

the discovery portion of the pre-trial is going to be hysterical, and apparently the House wants to look into O’Keefe, Giles, and Breitbart. I would love to see Breitbart on C-Span in front of the house over this.

The fact is, in Maryland, I can’t tape you (video or audio) without letting you know - even if you’re stalking me on the phone. It’s against the law, and the evidence is inadmissible in court.

For the court of public opinion that may not count, but the stingers may yet find themselves stung, nonetheless.

Not sure what a major news organization does when they want to report undercover in Maryland. Maybe find another state? Or take their lumps and pay the fine?

It’s an obscure law, and may need to be changed, but the pimp ‘n’ ho team may have to write a fat check, at the very least.

No doubt to be covered by the people who are happy not just to see ACORN in trouble, but who are now gleefully rubbing their hands at the thought that some poor people (those evil bums) might lose their houses in the absence of help.

And believe me, I know some of those.

Way to miss the point. ACORN has two people claiming to be engaged in illegal activity, ACORN gives them illegal advice, Cato the Elder complains that poor people aren’t being helped now.

If people are asking for help with illegal activities, ACORN should turn them away. Not help them break the law more.

Given that, I think that ACORN has just screwed itself. I also have little doubt that they probably first tried to get a criminal complaint filed since that would have been far more damning and cost them less money.

I have no problem with it. If laws were broken by the sting operation then action should be taken. You can’t break into someone’s house, find an unregistered handgun and then go tell the police. Everybody has to operate within the law. That goes for ACORN and the investigators.

Good old Luther Scott Harshbarger. Just ask Tookie Amirault about his conviction to justice. When he was running for Governor of Massachusetts he kept saying how proud he was of the Fells Acres convictions, even as they were being revealed as the frauds they were.

Of course the judiciary of the Commonwealth helped save his ass by upholding the unjust convictions.

Oh, and another reason to loathe Harshbarger… he lobbied for McCain Fiengold.

Interesting that the Iranian delegation is absent for PM Netanyahu’s speech.

Even more interesting, the cameras - UN controlled - cut to the Israeli delegation during the speech catching at least one member seeming to be sending the P.M. a signal to tone it down (hand palm down, pushing down in slow motion).

Interesting in context that cameras did not provide a complete view of the half empty hall during the dinner jacket speech.

Fearnow v. C&P Telephone - 342 Md. 363 for one. That case references phone calls being taped, and the plaintiff lost because he failed to prove the element of malice. However, it does set forth the elements of the law pretty clearly.

what does a lawsuit accomplish?…if they win, will they get their federal funding back? Will their reputation be restored? Winning or losing this lawsuit does nothing but give the story legs and expose ACORN to more scrutiny.

I am wondering what whistleblower protections might apply here. From what I can see the protections in Maryland are extended to employee “whistleblowers” of an organization. Any cases in Maryland where that is expanded to someone who is not an employee to protect them from retaliation?

Acorn doesn’t care whether the two broke Maryland law or not. They just want to harass O’Keefe and Giles and make them fork out big bucks for a trial. It’ll be a $100 fine, but more like $40,000 for a trial. Assholes.

I’m really trying to figure out what ACORN has up its sleeve here. I can’t see any upside here for ACORN, except maybe that it figures it has nothing to lose now. Ditto for the lawyers. They don’t care what happens as they win if ACORN prevails and win if it doesn’t. The longer it takes one way or another for them is all that matters.

ACORN is probably finished now. Rightly so. Should have happened years ago. It will probably just morph into a new entity with many of the same players. No matter what it tries to do however to clean up its new image, it’s unworkable as the people involved at the top will still be pure corruptocrats and marginal imbeciles will handle the field offices.

But, the money will still flow, pockets will still be lined, and no demonstrable positive good will come from its new polished look. And we will continue to pay for all of it and be outraged at the next scandal.

Personally, I think the whole “both parties have to consent” thing is dumb. If your house is being broken into, why should you require the consent of the thief to conduct the recording? Should the guy who made this recording not be allowed to do it because he’s in the wrong state?:

That said, as much as I think think laws like this are dumb, I also think that those who violate them should be prosecuted, lest you have a “all [people] are equal, but some [people] are more equal” Animal Farm type scenario.

Anyway, here’s an article on the what the law says and how it’s been interpreted in the courts:

I have no problem with it. If laws were broken by the sting operation then action should be taken. You can’t break into someone’s house, find an unregistered handgun and then go tell the police. Everybody has to operate within the law. That goes for ACORN and the investigators.

That’s correct. And as I said this morning, ACORN misstates the law here, as far as I know. I very much doubt that it’s illegal to record another person without their knowledge; there is simply too much incidental recording that takes place to make such a law enforceable. In states that have related laws, failure to obtain consent makes such recording inadmissible in court as evidence; there isn’t any criminal wrongdoing involved, but it won’t pass muster if offered as evidence of wrongdoing, for example.

It seems to me that this is an attempt to poison the tree that might or might not someday bear fruit of wrongdoing against the organization, tainting any knowledge that comes as a result of the original video recordings. This makes more sense of ACORN’s action. No one has to sue in order to obtain redress for illegal actions; all that’s needed to start that wheel spinning is to notify the authorities that a crime has been committed, no lawsuit necessary. If, on the other hand, you’re trying to set a legal precedent that provides you with protection against this incident, and possibly other similar incidents elsewhere, obtaining a judgment of this sort gets you there in a hurry.

That’s correct. And as I said this morning, ACORN misstates the law here, as far as I know. I very much doubt that it’s illegal to record another person without their knowledge; there is simply too much incidental recording that takes place to make such a law enforceable. In states that have related laws, failure to obtain consent makes such recording inadmissible in court as evidence; there isn’t any criminal wrongdoing involved, but it won’t pass muster if offered as evidence of wrongdoing, for example.

…

I think upthread, lawhawk says the recording depends on whether or not the person being recorded has an “expectation of privacy” in the area where the conversation is taking place. There may not be such an expectation in an office reception area. So this recording may not have broken the law. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Ah, also… as I mentioned last night when this story came up; the fact that ACORN is suing the filmmakers kind of undermines their official story that the videotapes just showed the actions of a few rogue individuals in an otherwise pristine organization of do-gooders. Hey, if that’s the case, shouldn’t they be awarding the filmmakers medals or something, instead of suing them? You know, for helping y’all root out those few bad apples.

Unfortunately, the precedent is with ACORN.
ABC, iirc, lost a suit when they had someone in the meat cutting department of a supermarket record unsafe conditions and meat handling.

See number 14 above. The Grocery sting was a different animal. Not only was it in another state, but the meat room of a grocery store is not an area where the public is alowed to roam free. It does not fit into the public conversation exception stated above. Further, the undercover operatives in that sting falsified employment applications, I-9’s, and a whole host of other government and company forms in order to, “get hired,” as employees of the Grocery. I hope this case does get at least to the discovery phase, as it should be fun. Our Acorn operatives merely walked in off the street and started talking and listening in an area of the office designated for public reception. The CEO of Acorn also thanked them publicly on T.V. for their efforts. Make no mistake, this case is a loser.

First, Scott Harshbarger was the legal ethics lecturer in my civil clinic class at Boston University while he was state A.G. (That’s quite permissible; he only lectured once a week or so.) I got one of the two A+’s in the class, and that was after my answer to the question, what do you do if you’re representing (as a student, students handled real cases with faculty supervision) a guy making an employment commission claim and on the way in to the hearing, he tells you that he made everything up. “Mr. SFGoth?” “I’d tell my advisor, see ya later, I’m outta here. No way I’m going to donate my pro bono time to a liar trying to cheat the system.” (Not an exact quote, but close enough.) That was apparently not the right answer, but I sure got brownie points for guts and sincerity.

Second, does Maryland have a SLAPP statute? I’d sure love to see them prove up their damages.

First, Scott Harshbarger was the legal ethics lecturer in my civil clinic class at Boston University while he was state A.G. (That’s quite permissible; he only lectured once a week or so.) I got one of the two A+’s in the class, and that was after my answer to the question, what do you do if you’re representing (as a student, students handled real cases with faculty supervision) a guy making an employment commission claim and on the way in to the hearing, he tells you that he made everything up. “Mr. SFGoth?” “I’d tell my advisor, see ya later, I’m outta here. No way I’m going to donate my pro bono time to a liar trying to cheat the system.” (Not an exact quote, but close enough.) That was apparently not the right answer, but I sure got brownie points for guts and sincerity.

Second, does Maryland have a SLAPP statute? I’d sure love to see them prove up their damages.

What did Mr. Harsbarger think of your reply?
I know my wife, a criminal defense attorney, has said she is ethically forbidden to help her clients lie.

What did Mr. Harsbarger think of your reply?
I know my wife, a criminal defense attorney, has said she is ethically forbidden to help her clients lie.

He told me I was wrong, not because I would refuse to help someone lie, but because you’re supposed to finesse it or find some discreet way of dealing with the problem — his admission of lying is attorney-client privileged. Of course, as a student, I could take off and leave it in my prof’s hands. Heh. He did find my honesty refreshing. I rather liked him, and not just b/c I got an A+.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t one of the arguments that Linda Tripp’s defense attorney was using during her legal battle was a previous Maryland supreme court ruling that the prosecutor had to show proof that the taping party was aware that the taping was illegal?

He case was dismissed because the evidence was too tainted, of course.

A staggeringly dumb move: now the defendant can subpoena documents and depose pretty much anyone they wish, writings and people that they would not have had access to before. ACORN has opened the books to the “conservative activists” (sans intention comique). I expect Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe will be dining off this blunder for some time to come, heck they probably will post video of the depositions on youtube.

Yes, Harshbarger’s a complete scumbag. Were it not for Dorothy Rabinowitz’s reporting in the WSJ I and the rest of America wouldn’t know the the Amiraults were completely innocent. I guess Gerald is still in jail.re: #114 JamesW